Mega removes 3D gun design

File locker service Mega has removed publicly available 3D gun designs from its service, following orders by founder Kim Dotcom.

The designs were made available by US-based company Defense Distributed, and can be used with certain 3D printers. The company successfully fired the world's first 3D printed gun recently, and made the design available on its website.

The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanded that the design be removed, and a probe to establish whether the company broke arms control laws relating to overseas shipping is underway.

The design is still being hosting by other sites however, such as the Pirate Bay. Mega's controversial founder, Kim Dotcom, opted to order his staff to remove public copies of the designs from the file locker's servers after being made aware of them.

He denied that he had been contacted by anyone from the U.S. government about the matter, and said the decision was made out of public concern.

"I think it's a serious threat to security of the community. I think it's scary that people can print 3D guns that can't even be detected by metal detectors ... This should concern everybody,"he toldRadio New Zealand.

In reality, the 3D gun design would still require a fairly expensive printer to fabricate, so the feasibility of a 3D printing enthusiast making a working gun is unclear. The technology is advancing at a rapid pace though, so you can expect legislators to move on this question quickly.

Saying that these printers are too expensive for ordinary people (let's not mention organised crime hey) is not sensible remark, I only became aware in the last few months that 3d printing is the latest big craze and it's because they have been plummeting in price. Also, an invention of the year was a home-made device that could extrude the expensive plastic spool needed out of cheap base material. The thing that makes me feel slightly better is that the thing will only fire one round at a time. Let's hope home-made automatic weapons are a way away yet.

@ChiknLitl How is it "not undetectable" when everyone here says it is. You really must explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously... "by design" is a vague remark, we all know designs can be changed.

Read up on it. The pistol is as likely to explode as it is to actually fire! Nothing they made was illegal, they are a federally licensed firearms manufacturer. The only potential misstep was making the design available for download outside of the US.

First, does anyone understand how X-rays work? They show the difference in DENSITY, not just showing metal versus not metal. The Glock and even the 3D printed gun look just exactly like what they are on an X-ray machine - i.e. GUNS. So the problem with "undetectable" is really just to the hand held scanners, which do only detect metal in a manner similar to mine detectors that scavengers use to find coins in the ground.

Second, you can't hijack a plane and fly it into the Capitol Dome with a gun that only has one bullet ... unless theres only one other person on the plane.

Third, as someone else noted, the genie is out of the bottle. Plenty of sites which are not under US govt control have the plans and anyone who wants them bad enough will be able to get them. This is a GOOD THING, because those people who are fearful of guns will no longer be able to pretend that they will ever be completely banned. Those of us who demand the right to self protection will get it and politicians will have to actually apply some thought to reducing crime rather than just blaming everything on guns.

Originally posted by ToadWiz: First, does anyone understand how X-rays work? They show the difference in DENSITY, not just showing metal versus not metal. The Glock and even the 3D printed gun look just exactly like what they are on an X-ray machine - i.e. GUNS. So the problem with "undetectable" is really just to the hand held scanners, which do only detect metal in a manner similar to mine detectors that scavengers use to find coins in the ground.

Second, you can't hijack a plane and fly it into the Capitol Dome with a gun that only has one bullet ... unless theres only one other person on the plane.

Third, as someone else noted, the genie is out of the bottle. Plenty of sites which are not under US govt control have the plans and anyone who wants them bad enough will be able to get them. This is a GOOD THING, because those people who are fearful of guns will no longer be able to pretend that they will ever be completely banned. Those of us who demand the right to self protection will get it and politicians will have to actually apply some thought to reducing crime rather than just blaming everything on guns.

This is absolutely correct. Does anyone realize that a UN council has decided that the right to self defense is not a human right? They are using this as an excuse to have member countries outlaw hand guns. In the US we have the 2nd amendment that is continually under attack. If this printed gun issue takes off the arguments are moot and they will have to blame crime on high capacity sugared soda!

Well, at least there's symmetry, because I find the arguments in favor of gun control moronic. A survey of criminals in the US shows that 40% of them get their guns illegally. So what good is another law going to do? It's like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.

Further you don't NEED a computer, or a car, or a shrimp to throw on the barbie, or anything else that is above the basics of food and shelter. People who think they have the right to tell others what they need are self-righteous, and as you noted, it's easier to be righteous than right.

Originally posted by Me: Not being American but a free Aussie I find the arguments against gun control moronic.

You don't need anything but a shotgun for self protection ...if that.

Originally posted by ToadWiz: Well, at least there's symmetry, because I find the arguments in favor of gun control moronic. A survey of criminals in the US shows that 40% of them get their guns illegally. So what good is another law going to do? It's like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.

Further you don't NEED a computer, or a car, or a shrimp to throw on the barbie, or anything else that is above the basics of food and shelter. People who think they have the right to tell others what they need are self-righteous, and as you noted, it's easier to be righteous than right.

whatever

LATE EDIT: I should add... I live the reality of gun control in my country, whereas you live in some hyper-hysterical delusional paranoia of assumptions.

For the University program that I'm in, there's a big project (forget what its called) that basically spans over my 4th year where we have to design something from the ground up and present it with the ethics and economics and blah to whoever. Most projects usually involve using the 3D printers we have available. I asked one of my profs if designing a gun would be acceptable, and he said its typically "frowned upon".

Designing things like drones are ok though.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 May 2013 @ 17:16

Originally posted by Me: Not being American but a free Aussie I find the arguments against gun control moronic.

You don't need anything but a shotgun for self protection ...if that.

Originally posted by ToadWiz: Well, at least there's symmetry, because I find the arguments in favor of gun control moronic. A survey of criminals in the US shows that 40% of them get their guns illegally. So what good is another law going to do? It's like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.

Further you don't NEED a computer, or a car, or a shrimp to throw on the barbie, or anything else that is above the basics of food and shelter. People who think they have the right to tell others what they need are self-righteous, and as you noted, it's easier to be righteous than right.

whatever

LATE EDIT: I should add... I live the reality of gun control in my country, whereas you live in some hyper-hysterical delusional paranoia of assumptions.

We've already been over this. It takes someone who is self righteous to demand that other people live as he chooses. Your signature confirms that it's easier to be righteous than right, and your unfounded and unproven assertions demonstrate that you'd rather be righteous than right.

Why are you so upset? You are the one who is ranting and near hysterical. I have no problem at all with you living however you want. Australia isn't my country and I'm no where near arrogant enough to try to tell you how Aussies should live. What it is about your side that believes it has a mandate to force your opinion on everyone else?

Still, if you are going to be this emotional, I hope you don't have access to guns.

I have two adult children that I am proud of and care at least as much about as you do for your son.

Originally posted by Me: Not being American but a free Aussie I find the arguments against gun control moronic.

You don't need anything but a shotgun for self protection ...if that.

Originally posted by ToadWiz: Well, at least there's symmetry, because I find the arguments in favor of gun control moronic. A survey of criminals in the US shows that 40% of them get their guns illegally. So what good is another law going to do? It's like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.

Further you don't NEED a computer, or a car, or a shrimp to throw on the barbie, or anything else that is above the basics of food and shelter. People who think they have the right to tell others what they need are self-righteous, and as you noted, it's easier to be righteous than right.

whatever

LATE EDIT: I should add... I live the reality of gun control in my country, whereas you live in some hyper-hysterical delusional paranoia of assumptions.

We've already been over this. It takes someone who is self righteous to demand that other people live as he chooses. Your signature confirms that it's easier to be righteous than right, and your unfounded and unproven assertions demonstrate that you'd rather be righteous than right.

Why are you so upset? You are the one who is ranting and near hysterical. I have no problem at all with you living however you want. Australia isn't my country and I'm no where near arrogant enough to try to tell you how Aussies should live. What it is about your side that believes it has a mandate to force your opinion on everyone else?

Still, if you are going to be this emotional, I hope you don't have access to guns.

I have two adult children that I am proud of and care at least as much about as you do for your son.

I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black mate... I'm neither upset, self-rightous or ranting. I use far less words for one thing. It's typical of your type to project. It's indicative of your inability to be objective.

Actually, I don't see how Jemborg is demanding anyone live any particular way at all, ToadWiz. Finding an argument to be "moronic" is NOT, in fact, any kind of demand, except possibly for sense from those who are making none. Nor does he appear self-righteous here; he's clearly stating opinion, not anything represented as fact (self-righteousness implies opinion clothed as fact). Therefore, your entire argument here is moot.

This kind of crap, ToadWiz, is exactly how the anti-gun-control side of the argument constantly blows past logic, right into the land of shrill partisanship. It does your argument no good at all; people generally won't listen to someone who is so obviously not listening to them. Can you blame them? Would YOU? lol

I'm aware this type of *cough* "debate" has worked well for the conservative base. Thing is, it's not actually *debate*. Come up with a logical argument and people might just listen to you, but arguing from emotion and innuendo is self-destructive.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 May 2013 @ 10:59

Originally posted by Bozobub: Actually, I don't see how Jemborg is demanding anyone live any particular way at all, ToadWiz.

As a rule, I respect people's opinions, because if you aren't willing to listen to what someone else has to say, you can hardly expect anyone to listen to what you have to say. On the other hand, "... you live in some hyper-hysterical delusional paranoia of assumptions", is a self-righteous judgement of someone else without any attempt to consider the facts or their opinion. This seems to be stock and trade for the anti-gun side.

"It's about the children!" Ok, so why aren't we interested in looking closely at the facts? Chicago has the highest murder rate of any major US city and also has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. So maybe the problem isn't guns. Maybe it's that Chicago has about 30 different gangs divided into at least 625 factions. Looking at mass killings, I've found 66 cases, including Sandy Hook and Columbine, where the perpetrator was recently on psycopharmaceuticals. Where is the liberal concern about mind-altering drugs? In fact, if you are on welfare, you get an increase in benefit if you have a child with a disability. ADHD is considered such a disability and the standard treatment is psycopharmaceuticals. This should really worry anyone living in a big city, because our children are being drugged with very limited medical supervision so that parents can get a larger welfare check. The murder rate of knives, fists, and blunt objects exceeds the gun murder rate by a factor of 2. In spite of media hysteria, the rate of gun homicides is actually down 49% from it's high in 1993. In Florida, when they passed the concealed carry law, the rate of vehicle hijackings dropped 8%. The rate of firearm homicides generally fluctuates in inverse proportion to the number of firearms sold. (I don't think it necessarily means this, but that COULD mean that the more firearms that are sold, the more criminals are afraid to commit crimes.) I can go on, because I am willing to use thought, do research, check statistics, and to consider whether the unproven assumption that guns are at fault is true, or just a fantasy. If it really is about the children and not about liberal paranoia people should be willing to consider these things.

Anyway, I agree with you about arguing emotion and innuendo. That was my point to Jemborg. It's so much more fun to be righteous (without facts) that to have to use research and thought to understand the facts.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 May 2013 @ 14:26

Yet the liberals took the opportunity to further their gun grabbing agenda by capitalizing on the tragedy of newtown. They used emotion, innuendo, and distorted statistics to pull at the nation's heartstrings to influence a vote instead of trying to come to the table for a rational discussion. It's for the children!

The issue of this plastic gun has already brought on new legislation that may be impossible to enforce if it ever gets passed. And it will likely get passed due to fear.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 May 2013 @ 14:46

@Toadwiz In principle I agree with you, I think the general point is you are making the argument with him and is not based necessarily on things he has said. Australia has a very different history that the US and what works for them may not work for others. Considering our governments past crimes at home and abroad in the last 200 some odd years, Democratically elected or not they are NOT to be trusted.

Account Created Saturday 12 January 2008. After 9 years I consider myself a Sr. Member no matter WHAT my post count says.

Originally posted by Jemborg: Only a fool would believe that they could single-handedly or in some pathetic militia fight off the US gov... roflmao.

Also, I'm not a relativist...

WOW, maybe I missed something and you really are picking fights. I said nothing about fighting them off. I just said they are not to be trusted.

I agree that if the US government could bring its full might down on the American people it would be devastating, but not a sure thing. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan, a population willing to resist can bleed an army for decades. Add in probable defections from said army and it gets even more complicated. There would not be much left worth governing for either side all said and done.

On that Note deterrence is the best form of defense, such a scenario would cause far more difficulty than just leaving the people be. A mostly unarmed population would give a would be over stepper much less reason to pause.

Account Created Saturday 12 January 2008. After 9 years I consider myself a Sr. Member no matter WHAT my post count says.

Originally posted by Bozobub: people generally won't listen to someone who is so obviously not listening to them.

Originally posted by Jemborg: I couldn't be bothered reading a wall of self-serving delusional exaggeration.

And I truly appreciate both Bozobub and Jemborg for making this clear. This is standard tactic from the gun-haters, i.e. "I have my mind made up. Nothing you can say will change it. Don't confuse me with the facts. Facts that don't agree with my feelings must be delusions or exaggerations. I and I ALONE am the sole source of what is good, true, and correct. If everyone would just accept my opinion as fact, we can all get along. If you don't, I'm going to harass you until you do." (Incidentally, I'm fully aware that Jemborg lied about not reading the facts I listed. He recognized that he couldn't compete with someone who has researched the subject, so he responded in an emotional, hysterical, and hostile manner.) I won't respond to anything further Jemborg has to say. As Bozobub noted, no point in talking to someone who has clearly stated he isn't listening. If Bozobub or anyone else wants to discuss facts, I'm willing.

I think pro-gun forces make a mistake in thinking that this is about security from the government or about fighting off invasions. If and when the government shows up to confiscate my guns, I don't want to have a shoot-out; I want to call the media, especially Fox and the independents, and have a camera set up to record fascism in action. If it costs me my life and/or freedom to expose the government, it will be worth it to save that freedom for someone else.

But this is a fight about self-defense, and about laws which have nothing at all to do with the issue in question. As I noted above, if this is REALLY about the children, then we need to be looking at gangs, at overprescription of psycopharmaceuticals, and at morality. (And by morality, I do not mean religion. I mean that inner city kids raised by single parents are heavily influenced by gang-bangers, dope pushers, pimps, and similar garbage. I'd like to know why the first thought is to take MY freedoms away and not THEIRS.)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 May 2013 @ 20:17

@ ToadWiz:
Sorry my eyes glaze over when I see a wall of hackneyed tripe. You can't explain to me why you need more than a shotty to protect your family and your other arguments are not born out in other free countries (like mine)... there is no special case for the US.

Originally posted by Scaldari: WOW, maybe I missed something and you really are picking fights.

As you noted, he's just trying to pick fights. He's flat out stated that nothing, no statistics, no facts, probably not God himself, could convince him that he isn't right. Note that he mentions slavery, again attempting to pick a fight and without realizing that my family and perhaps yours, fought against slavery. Besides, I've been to Australia and seen how the Aborigines are treated. As Confuscious said, "Man who lives in glass house should not throw stones."

I note he's a senior member, which means he's posted a lot. He's meddling in the affairs of another country half way around the world, not that he's not allowed to have an opinion, but he's trying to force his opinion on others without listening in return. Note how he wants the issues to be emotional. He's not interested in logic, and the left has always dealt in emotions, not facts. Perhaps he is afraid, a bully, or a coward. Perhaps he needs someone he can piss off, so he can go away with that nice secure feeling that he's bullied someone. Perhaps he's worried that a dingo is going to eat his baby, and thinks that starting an emotional argument will make him feel better.

May I suggest that you ignore him, as I intend to. I may well post, but it won't be to him. A discussion is an exchange of information. An argument is an exchange of ignorance. Don't lower yourself to his level. In ignorance, he has us both beat.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2013 @ 3:44

I suppose if you were arguing for religion and I said I thought it was nonsense because there is no real collaborative evidence you'd say I was "picking a fight"... simply because your precious beliefs are challenged. This is a forum... get over it.

As if someone who simply disagrees with you is "...picking a fight". How pathetic. Shows where your hypocritical head's at.

Xboxdvl2, "So called facts?" You want me to provide you with the URLs? No problem, most of them are from the FBI database. But if you are like Jemborg and won't accept any facts that don't support your position, I won't waste my time.

The guy who posted the blueprints is American. He did it to b1tch-slap Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schummer for their proposed gun-control laws. I'm an American, and I oppose such laws, so while I'm not an anarchist, I approve of the posting. On the other hand, I have no need to try to change any other country's laws, nor am I so egotistical that I think anyone should give a tinker's damn what any foreigner thinks about their laws. Whatever laws you and your country favor are ok with me. So whatever Australia's problems and laws are, they're for you and your compatriots to solve.

I will say that the statistics for home invasion robberies with residents present runs 13% in America and about 50% in Canada and Great Britain. It could be that in countries with more gun control, robbers are less concerned about encountering an armed home-owner, than in the US.

I agree with you on the meds. Socialized medicine limits the time a doctor can spend with a patient, especially one seen on Medicare or a charity basis. It's easy to prescribe a med and get the person out of your office. I don't think anyone is really interested in the evidence, but in both the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings, the perpetrators were recent users of psycopharmaceuticals. Anyone who says it is about the children, but is unwilling to consider this data, is lying.

Gun-control is almost a religion with some people, and I will not waste one second arguing with a fanatic about religion. Statistics are not opinion, and if you or anyone else thinks that statistics should be dismissed so you can argue about opinions, you can do it without me. But if you want to discuss, I'm always available.

Let's ignore any statistic that doesn't agree with our preconceived biases and prejudices, so that we can be righteous without being right. After all, liberals know EVERYTHING. They are the smartest people in the whole world, able to tell anyone just exactly how they should live and in fact, ordained to rule the lesser classes. If you don't believe me, just ask them. They'll tell you.

Of course, ToadWiz, they will use damn lies and statistics when it suits them. Because, ummm, 90% of Americans want gun control, right? Of course none of the media outlets bothered to do a simple check on that poll yet touted that figure high and low as if it were gospel.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 May 2013 @ 0:39

Originally posted by ChiknLitl: Of course, ToadWiz, they will use damn lies and statistics when it suits them.

Yes, you have the salient point. If every argument is based on personal opinion, no facts or statistics allowed, then everything comes down to who has the loudest voice, i.e. who can shout down their opposition. If you accept the basic assumption that 50% plus 1 is always right, then you accept that when you don't happen to be on that side of an argument, you must shut up and accept defeat. And as you noted, just being the most obnoxious doesn't mean you have the 50% +1, unless it's just your ability to be obnoxious.

This is really about what checks and balances are all about. No one has the right to take property or freedom from another just because they have the loudest voice, or even because they have 50% +1. If this were not so, then slavery might still exist.

People who can think, rather than spouting their latest campaign slogan, can ask themselves if psycopharmaceuticals are worth investigating as a cause, or if gangs are more of a factor in violence than guns, or if countries without a neighbor, like Australia, have different needs than countries with one. The number 2 illegal import into the US (after drugs) is automatic weapons. (I mean FULLY automatic, what are called machine guns and which are already illegal.) Laws banning weapons to honest people won't do anything to stem this illegal flow.

I'm fairly sure it was Rahm Emannuel (but I can look it up if someone insists) who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Translated into English that means, "We can USE the tragedy these people suffered to stir up emotion and ram through laws we haven't been able to pass when people aren't emotionally wound up." To me, this smacks of the basest utilitarianism - to so callously use the suffering of someone else just so you can pass a pet political project. But being self-righteous is equated in some people's minds as being right. Rahm's attitude is mirrored on this board.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 May 2013 @ 0:43

Come here and see for yourself rather than indulge your self-serving BS. If you were right we would all be terrified here. The Americans I know who live here think you are absolutely full of it in regards to the question.... they can't ALL be "liberals".